Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I just have to shake my head and laugh at the idea that there is nothing we can do.  There are almost limitless approaches we could take given the we know what the main issue is and how to mitigate it.  But we have been sold so many fairy tales that there is nothing you can do, and people eat it up because doing something requires effort and doing nothing requires, well, nothing.

Good Point - I remember 60 Minutes interviewing some European guy who during WWII hid then transported many Jewish & displaced people along with other enemies of the Reich - thousands.Right under the Gestapo's noses with great risk/danger to himself.He simply said "If something isn't impossible then there must be a way to do it" 

 With that being said I suppose from an ecological/economical/political standpoint we need to stop half assing and dicking around.But if other large countries China/Russia/India for instance don't actually put some skin in the game then hamstringing ourselves beyond reason makes no sense

We need real solutions, not someday imaginary ones.

I actually think nuclear could help but there's always glitches.Solar makes sense if there was a practical way to harness it effectively.Scientists have opined that the SUN burns more energy in one second than Earth could/would use in it's entire duration

Carbon capture and storage: Fundamental thermodynamics and current technology - ScienceDirect

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is considered a leading technology for reducing CO₂ emissions from fossil-fuelled electricity generation plants and could permit the continued use of coal and gas whilst meeting greenhouse gas targets. However considerable energy is required for the capture, compression, transport and storage steps involved. In this paper, energy penalty information in the literature is reviewed, and thermodynamically ideal and “real world” energy penalty values are calculated. For a sub-critical pulverized coal (PC) plant, the energy penalty values for 100% capture are 48.6% and 43.5% for liquefied CO₂, and for CO₂ compressed to 11 MPa, respectively. When assumptions for supercritical plants were incorporated, results were in broad agreement with published values arising from process modelling. However, we show that energy use in existing capture operations is considerably greater than indicated by most projections. Full CCS demonstration plants are now required to verify modelled energy penalty values. However, it appears unlikely that CCS will deliver significant CO₂ reductions in a timely fashion. In addition, many uncertainties remain over the permanence of CO₂ storage, either in geological formations, or beneath the ocean. We conclude that further investment in CCS should be seriously questioned by policy makers.

Economic and energetic analysis of capturing CO2 from ambient air | PNAS

Our empirical analyses of operating commercial processes suggest that the energetic and financial costs of capturing CO₂ from the air are likely to have been underestimated. Specifically, our analysis of existing gas separation systems suggests that, unless air capture significantly outperforms these systems, it is likely to require more than 400 kJ of work per mole of CO₂, requiring it to be powered by CO₂-neutral power sources in order to be CO₂ negative. We estimate that total system costs of an air capture system will be on the order of $1,000 per tonne of CO₂, based on experience with as-built large-scale trace gas removal systems.

Nuclear would be a significant solution, but is impracticable.  It's not going to happen on any scale in the US.

Well there's always the chance of a Fukushima like problem looming